Comments on: Pedophiles Have a Friend in the CA Courts http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/ Reality Bytes Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: logicallaws http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-127 logicallaws Thu, 11 May 2006 01:22:20 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-127 In most states, sex, oral or otherwise, would be legal anyway since the age of consent is 16 or 17. What does that have to do with pedophiles? Don't you people ever think? In most states, sex, oral or otherwise, would be legal anyway since the age of consent is 16 or 17.

What does that have to do with pedophiles?

Don’t you people ever think?

]]> By: logicallaws http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-114854 logicallaws Wed, 10 May 2006 23:22:20 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-114854 In most states, sex, oral or otherwise, would be legal anyway since the age of consent is 16 or 17.<br><br>What does that have to do with pedophiles?<br><br>Don't you people ever think? In most states, sex, oral or otherwise, would be legal anyway since the age of consent is 16 or 17.

What does that have to do with pedophiles?

Don't you people ever think?

]]> By: grumpy old fart http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-126 grumpy old fart Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:47:43 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-126 Ms. Underestimated, Why mess up a good screed with facts or logic, eh? The California court ruled that since state law does not require lifetime registration for those convicted of having sexual intercourse with 16 & 17 year-olds, such registration would also not be required for those having oral sex with 16 & 17 year olds. The ruling is perfectly consistent with the state law. The "problem" lies with the California legislature, not with the court. They, not the court, are the ones who have decided that those having sex with 16 & 17 year olds do not have to register. Just another example of how the term "activist judges" gets tossed about by the clueless for the consumption of the equally clueless. Ms. Underestimated,

Why mess up a good screed with facts or logic, eh?

The California court ruled that since state law does not require lifetime registration for those convicted of having sexual intercourse with 16 & 17 year-olds, such registration would also not be required for those having oral sex with 16 & 17 year olds. The ruling is perfectly consistent with the state law.

The “problem” lies with the California legislature, not with the court. They, not the court, are the ones who have decided that those having sex with 16 & 17 year olds do not have to register.

Just another example of how the term “activist judges” gets tossed about by the clueless for the consumption of the equally clueless.

]]> By: grumpy old fart http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-114855 grumpy old fart Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:47:43 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-114855 Ms. Underestimated,<br><br>Why mess up a good screed with facts or logic, eh?<br><br>The California court ruled that since state law does not require lifetime registration for those convicted of having sexual intercourse with 16 & 17 year-olds, such registration would also not be required for those having oral sex with 16 & 17 year olds. The ruling is perfectly consistent with the state law.<br><br>The "problem" lies with the California legislature, not with the court. They, not the court, are the ones who have decided that those having sex with 16 & 17 year olds do not have to register.<br><br>Just another example of how the term "activist judges" gets tossed about by the clueless for the consumption of the equally clueless. Ms. Underestimated,

Why mess up a good screed with facts or logic, eh?

The California court ruled that since state law does not require lifetime registration for those convicted of having sexual intercourse with 16 & 17 year-olds, such registration would also not be required for those having oral sex with 16 & 17 year olds. The ruling is perfectly consistent with the state law.

The “problem” lies with the California legislature, not with the court. They, not the court, are the ones who have decided that those having sex with 16 & 17 year olds do not have to register.

Just another example of how the term “activist judges” gets tossed about by the clueless for the consumption of the equally clueless.

]]> By: Jack http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-125 Jack Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:56:26 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-125 I think you misunderstood the ruling. The registration requirement was overturned because the California legislature had left (consensual) oral copulation with a 16 or 17 year old a special type of crime requiring lifetime registration. However, (consensual) normal sex at the age of 16 or 17, while still a crime, did not require any special registration. Most folks involved in the case, including the original prosecutor, agreed that it was inconsistent to treat oral sex and regular sex differently, which is why the law was overturned. Remember that it's still a crime to do either activity with a minor in California, and that the legislature can enact laws that will punish both offenses equally. The CA ruling just says that both regular and oral sex have to be (legally) treated the same. Do you see what their argument is? I think you misunderstood the ruling.

The registration requirement was overturned because the California legislature had left (consensual) oral copulation with a 16 or 17 year old a special type of crime requiring lifetime registration. However, (consensual) normal sex at the age of 16 or 17, while still a crime, did not require any special registration.

Most folks involved in the case, including the original prosecutor, agreed that it was inconsistent to treat oral sex and regular sex differently, which is why the law was overturned.

Remember that it’s still a crime to do either activity with a minor in California, and that the legislature can enact laws that will punish both offenses equally. The CA ruling just says that both regular and oral sex have to be (legally) treated the same. Do you see what their argument is?

]]> By: Jack http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/03/pedophiles-have-a-friend-in-the-ca-courts/comment-page-1/#comment-114856 Jack Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:56:26 +0000 http://www.msunderestimated.com/?p=59#comment-114856 I think you misunderstood the ruling.<br><br>The registration requirement was overturned because the California legislature had left (consensual) oral copulation with a 16 or 17 year old a special type of crime requiring lifetime registration. However, (consensual) normal sex at the age of 16 or 17, while still a crime, did not require any special registration.<br><br>Most folks involved in the case, including the original prosecutor, agreed that it was inconsistent to treat oral sex and regular sex differently, which is why the law was overturned. <br><br>Remember that it's still a crime to do either activity with a minor in California, and that the legislature can enact laws that will punish both offenses equally. The CA ruling just says that both regular and oral sex have to be (legally) treated the same. Do you see what their argument is? I think you misunderstood the ruling.

The registration requirement was overturned because the California legislature had left (consensual) oral copulation with a 16 or 17 year old a special type of crime requiring lifetime registration. However, (consensual) normal sex at the age of 16 or 17, while still a crime, did not require any special registration.

Most folks involved in the case, including the original prosecutor, agreed that it was inconsistent to treat oral sex and regular sex differently, which is why the law was overturned.

Remember that it's still a crime to do either activity with a minor in California, and that the legislature can enact laws that will punish both offenses equally. The CA ruling just says that both regular and oral sex have to be (legally) treated the same. Do you see what their argument is?

]]>